2019 (9) TMI 525 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Court sets aside Ext.P8, remands for reconsideration due to valid objections on double taxation. Petitioner retains right to pursue legal remedies.

The court set aside Ext.P8 and remanded the matter for reconsideration due to valid objections raised by the petitioner regarding double taxation. The ... Assessment of turnover - KVAT Act - CST Act - non-consideration of all points raised by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- A bare look at these exhibits demonstrates that the objections raised by the Senior Counsel on the mode and manner of examination by respondents is tenable. On the short ground of non-consideration of all the points raised in Exts.P4 and P5, order in Ext.P8 could be set aside - Accordingly, Ext.P8 on the short ground of non-consideration of objections in Exts.P4 and P5 is set aside and the matter restored to the file of the second respondent for consideration and disposal afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed by way of remand. Issues:Challenge to Exts. P8 and P9 orders on double taxation grounds.Analysis:The petitioner contested Exts. P8 and P9 orders due to alleged double taxation of a turnover amounting to Rs. 9,75,30,007 under both the Kerala Value Added Tax and the Central Sales Tax Act. The primary argument raised was the inclusion of this amount leading to double taxation. Ext.P8 order partially favored the petitioner, but the petitioner objected to the lack of consideration of their arguments in Exts.P4 and P5 and the overall dismissal of substantial objections. The learned Government Pleader argued against the merit of the double taxation claim and suggested dismissing the writ petition with the option for the petitioner to file a statutory appeal.The Court examined the contentions and evidence presented by both parties, including Exts.P3, P4, P5, and P8. Upon review, it was evident that the objections raised by the Senior Counsel regarding the examination process by the respondents were valid. The Court found that Ext.P8 did not adequately address all the points raised in Exts.P4 and P5, leading to the decision to set aside Ext.P8 and remand the matter to the second respondent for reconsideration and proper disposal in accordance with the law.As a result of the judgment, the petitioner was directed to appear before the second respondent on a specified date to provide additional details if necessary. The inquiry concerning the disputed amount of Rs. 9,75,30,007 was to be reconsidered, with all objections left open for the second respondent's review. The petitioner was granted the right to pursue further legal remedies if dissatisfied with the final decision. Ultimately, the writ petition was disposed of, concluding the legal proceedings related to the challenge against the orders in question.